/lit/ - Literature

>>17873097
It's obviously based. There's no question about it.

>>17873201
this post is cringe

he just wasn't really in that crowd

it is quite obvious, yes.

>>17873097
He comes from a conservative family of farm workers. His dad was a cop. There's no reason for him to support the fucking of kids.

>>17873097

Did the System of Object have anything on sexuality or pedophilia or norms in regards to? I don't think so.
The only bit I remember was that quip where he says that ironically the only freedom we have ever obtained was the freedom to objectify ourselves (and was likely the only freedom possible). But he didn't even refer directly to the sexual revolution even then...

>>17873097
He was a Debordian doomer. Both of these thinkers were way too blackpilled and lived on the margins of academic scene.

>>17873335
Hahahaha

>>17873301
That's 2D lolis though.

Completely different.

>>17873442
and 2D is where I have chosen to draw the line.

>>17873097
It’s based. Baudrillard shouldn’t be put in the same bag as scumbags like Foucault (who’s been outed as a pedophile a few weeks ago) or Deleuze. He’s also more brillant than them, whether you agree with him or not.

>>17873441

> The joke is, someone read the book.

>>17873335
He talks a lot about women and sexuality in “Cool memories”. It has a lot of beautiful and insightful aphorisms about relationships and sex.
>>17873342
He was even more pessimistic. Debord thought that you could create “situations” which allowed you to escape the Spectacle. Baudrillard thought that it was impossible to escape the simulation.

>>17873485
>He talks a lot about women and sexuality in “Cool memories”.
Ah! Haven't touched that one, thanks, I'll get to it.

>>17873456
>2D
>draw the line
lel

>>17873097
Do frenchies read him?

>>17873523

Oui, par contre j'ai jamais eu de cours sur lui en Philo.

>>17873523
Yes but Debord is more discussed

>>17873539
are they offered in french unis though?
Have you checked past semesters?

>>17873477
No the part on freedom is funny

>>17873461
>a few weeks ago

lmfao

>>17873547
>are they offered in french unis though?
>Have you checked past semesters?

I haven't in a long time, and I just did a quick check on the Sorbonne course, but I can't seem find an author's course on him... their site is absolute shit tho, so I might be missing it. But no, I don't remember ever seeing an author's course with his name.

>>17873301
How can you even find that attractive. They literally have no curves. Like, even in the aesthetic way it don't make sense. It's weird.

>>17873097
So was Lacan. It's not much of an achievement.

>>17873783
>How can you even find that attractive.

are you straight? if so, ask yourself that same question about men and homosexuality. Tastes differ. Do you like tall and athletic girls or short and thick girls? either way, you prefer some things over others. Same thing

>>17873201
It's actually cringe. Fucking children is based

>>17873485
What is his most pessimistic book?

>>17873811
>le edgy pedo

>>17873811
I don't care what you're attracted to, but don't fuck kids anon.

>>17873836
Don't tell me how to raise my kids

>>17873815
i haven't read nearly everything but i would think something like fatal strategies or the transparency of evil? more well read Baudrillardians should chime in though

>>17873836
i guess it's better to kill their desire for freedom and knowledge and force them to adhere to the arbitrary rules of our society, where they're constantly reprimanded and forced to obey and be anything but themselves. yes, that's how children should be treated. but don't you dare kiss them you evil pedos

>>17873920
that's the shittiest pedo apologia that I have ever seen

>>17873926
I'm on your side fellow righteous bro. I hate pedos. I like it when children's spirits are crushed by societal expectations that are based on nothing more than what amounts to a millenia-long game of post

>>17873950
>societal expectations that are based on nothing more than what amounts to a millenia-long game of post
What specifically do you dislike?

>>17873799
I like guys and gals. Young people can be nice, especially guys who got the ancient Greek look going on, but to a normal extent.

People at the age of the pic you posted aren't *developed*. Like what is a person like that even gonna offer? It's a stick. And the idea of any sort of sexual action towards that person feels creepy and predatory, because they aren't developed psychologically too. It's weird to me some people don't look at it like that. I don't get the appeal. Don't you want a girl with curves?? Like booba or badonka? Someone who can actually consent? Who you can have actual sophisticated conversations with? Don't you feel slimy when you look at pictures like this? Like, not even moralizing, I feel slimy when I see stuff like this. You have to have some sort of pathology to enjoy this specifically and to go out of your way to jerk to lolies.

>>17873783
fascinating transgression

>>17873965
Hanako is like 8000 she's probably better at having conversations than you. Although I would agree if she was REAL and a child talking to her would be taxing and kill any attraction. Thank goodness she is a cartoon and doesn't even resemble a child in any real sense.

>>17873900
Thank you

>>17874039
This is total pussying out, anon.

>>17873961
i didn't make a judgement aa to whether it's good or bad. it's not about what i dislike. in true Baudrillardian fashion, I'm merely describing the state of affairs
>>17873965
i didn't post the pic and I'm not even into jerking it to drawings but I'll reply to you anyway.

personally i like short and petite girls (disclaimer: not kids, but adults that are shorter than me and petite and slim. I'll grant you the psychological aspect. nothing about an undeveloped mind has any sexual appeal. as for curves, to an extent but i prefer skinny girls with tiny tits and cute small asses. I concede in consent and having convos. And as i said, i don't jerk it to loli so i can't answer you in regards to feeling slimy. I will however tell you this.I jerk off to some pretty degenerate stuff and don't feel slimy. But then again I'm not a pedo. I don't know how they feel when they cum

>>17874054
what was the post?

>>17874060
You're probably pretty ok. I don't think people ahould feel slimy for crancking it kinky or bdsm stuff.

>>17874169
People shouldn't feel slimy at all. Who are you to judge the sliminess degrees of fetishism?

>>17874169
because of my attraction to short, skinny, petite girls, i kinda get where people that like young are coming from. i. other words i see the appeal even if i myself don't find it appealing. just like i don't have to be gay to support gay rights, i don't think only pedos can be in favor of destigmatizing non offending pedophiles. furthermore, while i think there are problems with age of consent legislation, I'm not in support of child exploitation. I think this issue is painfully under-discussed and there are many opportunities for insight and significant benefits to not seeing the pedophilia issue as black and white. maybe you'll now change your mind about ne seemin like an okay dude but i just wanted to put that out there

>>17873461
quite the moralist for a Baudrillardian

>>17873617
why are all french unis sites all stuck in 2006? Are many french websites like that?

>>17873097
Fucking based as fuck. Anyone who says "cringe" and would sign that shit should be fucking smacked

>>17873485
>escape the simulation
The fact that you phrase your idea like that shows you have no idea what Baudrillard was talking about. It’s not a cave.

>>17874789
t. cuck